U.S. Government Recommends Lower Level Of Fluoride

Diabetes is a failure of the pancreas to adequately regulate blood sugar levels.

Eating too much "sugar" (table sugar, corn sugar, brown sugar, whatever) is not confirmed to cause it.

This is true, but there is compelling circumstantial evidence (that is, a strong correlation) between excessive intake of sugars, both simple and complex, and developing diabetes. It's too much of a coincidence that people who enter pre-diabetic and early diabetic states as adults can reverse this process by changing their diet and reducing bodyweight.

And, yes, lots of cases of diabetes definitively have other sources, such as genetic flaws which may take years or decades to fully manifest. I'm just saying that eating a pure sugar diet is probably not a wise idea, above and beyond the many other health issues that develop from a low intake of protein (and fats).

I'll own drink water from Fiji ! That or hippie tears !

I would put more faith in being overweight rather than eating too much sugar, because being overweight is generally pretty bad for you.

Actually, the more research we do, the more the jury is out on that.

Part of the problem, though, is that we measure overweight purely by weight. Which sounds reasonable, but I mass 220 lbs. and, although I'm definitely more chubby than I need to be, so much of my bodyweight is huge muscles that any attempt to use me in research data heavily skews things. For instance, longevity studies presently indicate that people in the "overweight" category of BMI, even into the lowest part of "obese," seem to have a higher life expectancy than those "normal" or in the upper echelons of obesity. Is that because of people like me with way more muscle mass than the average person? Maybe. We're not helping the numbers, anyhow.

The more we dig into the science of health, the less we seem to know right now. Generalizing rules of health keeps on presenting exceptions and provisos. Some people can smoke a pack a day, drain half a bottle of Jack, eat Twinkies 'til they puke, and still live to be 100. Then some vegan marathon runner drops dead of undiagnosed *** cancer at the ripe age of 26. It's all too much of a crap-shoot and really frustrating as a result.

Tooth decay: not just sugar intake (when chewing or swallowing) but the acids produced from digesting it.

Let's hope that people drink water with fluoride in it to help counter that. Oh wai.....

Exfoliated lately? Well, stop; you're hurting the Great Lakes—or so some emerging science says. That hand cream (or toothpaste or face wash) you washed down the drain contained tiny particles, known as synthetic microbeads, and researchers say they're finding more and more of them in America's largest inland bodies of water.

Congress is not pleased.

Republican House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton and Democratic ranking member Frank Pallone have introduced a bill that would ban the sale of personal care products that contain synthetic microbeads starting in January 2018. Energy and Commerce's health subcommittee is holding a hearing on the legislation Friday.

The concern, as several witnesses will testify, is that these microbeads—which contain some toxins—are too small (less than 5 millimeters in size) to be caught by water filtration systems, which means they can travel from your home to the lakes. There, they could then be mistaken for food by fish, entering them into the food chain.

"These things may be called microbeads, but they're a mega-problem for our Great Lakes," Upton said in a statement to National Journal. Researchers have estimated that Lake Ontario has as many as 1.1 million microbeads per square kilometer, per NPR.

Some states already have banned microbeads in cosmetic products, but those invested in the issue seem to agree that a nationwide policy would be better.

"Microbeads is a clear issue and a clear threat to the fish and the biology of our great freshwater system—and it is an issue with a clear, simple answer," Dan Wyant, quality director at the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, said in testimony prepared for Friday's hearing. "With no mechanism to process microbeads or capture them in wastewater treatment systems, they must be phased out."

Some major companie, such as Johnson & Johnson and Proctor & Gamble, already have pledged to phase out microbeads, and the industry's trade group in Washington, the Personal Care Products Council, is on board with the House's legislation mandating the change to their products—with a few conditions.

As inevitably happens when regulations are proposed, the trade groups are obligated to look out for their members' bottom lines. If products were yanked from shelves tomorrow, or the products in production had to be thrown in the dumpster, that is a lot of sunk costs for the manufacturer. It also takes time to figure out how to make their products without the microbeads—and make sure your teeth are just as clean.

The industry has a few suggested tweaks to Upton and Pallone's bill, which is only two pages long, John Hurson, executive vice president for government relations at the Personal Care Products Council, said in an interview. It wants a more specific definition of synthetic microbeads in the bill, rather than leaving it to the discretion of the Food and Drug Administration. It would also like an additional year or two for some products, such as toothpaste and acne cleansers, to comply with the law. And it wants to make clear that the federal policy would preempt any future state laws.

"We hope that we could deal with this in one shot in a federal bill," said Hurson, who is testifying at Friday's hearing. He added that he believes committee staff has sounded receptive to the changes.

Personal care companies don't exactly acknowledge that their products are causing an ecological disaster. They took particular issue with a study commissioned by the New York Attorney General's office, which those pushing for a ban have cited as evidence of the microbead problem. Molly Flanagan, vice president for policy at the Alliances for the Great Lakes, references the research in her prepared testimony for the House hearing.

The hell did I just read?! A Repukelican't, actually giving a damn about the environment?! What sorcery is this?!

Mind the salt content, you blood pressure doesn't need to be any higher, what with your militant feminism, anti-semitism, and strong HuffPo Hillary opinions getting you all worked up.


(AmIDoinItRight?)

Never listened to'im to begin with

You certainly listen to somebody who keeps telling you that Republicans don't care about the environment.

The Republican Party considers conservation to be a conservative value – as long as it is properly balanced with economics. They consider human health and safety to be the first and most important issue in environmental concerns, as humans are our country’s most valuable resource. Any policy that supports conservation must equally address economic growth and development, as well as private property rights, in order for it to be practical. The party also supports public access to public lands for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. Republicans believe in environmental policies that are tailored to the needs of the localities that they regulate, and that focus on achieving results processes. To this end, they support legislation that would require congressional approval before the implementation of any plan that would cost over $100 million to consumers to put into effect. They also support developing the technology to meet our environmental needs by providing market-based incentives to advance said technology.

That pretty much blatantly says that money has higher priority than human health and safety.

Ah I should have clarified. When I say overweight I mean as a scale of body fat percentage, not as a result of muscle mass. Obviously calling Schwarzenegger in his prime, obese is not accurate in the least.

That pretty much blatantly says that money has higher priority than human health and safety.

I don't see how you can read it like that. I mean, the bolded alone contradicts your statement.

I don't see how you can read it like that. I mean, the bolded alone contradicts your statement.

I read the sentence in the context it was given, by reading the sentence before it prior to reading that sentence.

This paragragh is discussing a topic. Humans are declared to be an environmental concern and the rest of the paragraph discusses how to handle environmental concerns.

1. Human health a safety most important issue in environmental concern.

human resource = environmental concern

2. Any policy that supports conservation must equally address economic growth and development, as well as private property rights, in order for it to be practical.

It might be "most important environmental concern" but it (humans) must be placed on equal footing with economic growth, development, and private property.

Human resource = environmental concern = economic growth, development, and private property

3. The line about environmental policies that are tailored to the needs of localities and focus on achieving results processes.

Human resource policy = environmental concern = tailored policy at the local level

4. Then the last line discusses developing technology to meet our environmental needs. Does this mean we develop technology to replace humans?

Well, it certainly sounds like it.

First sentence was a broad statement underlying the overall goals of the Republican party. The second sentence stated what is considered top priority when it comes to environmental issues.

I thought you would have figured that out.....

So if an issue affects human health and safety, but is not "properly" balanced with economics?

If you want to go that route, I'm sure I can make anything sound like that too. Apple Pie = Baking = Rising Temperatures = Global Warming = replacing emission producing components with better technology = replace people with computers. Now, I just need to make a paragraph that, by your standards, would tie them together....

Obviously human health and safety trumps it, because, as it said, that is the top priority....

Any policy that supports conservation must equally address economic growth and development, as well as private property rights, in order for it to be practical.

Obviously human health and safety trumps it, because, as it said, that is the top priority....